Originally Posted by Rasputin:
Imagine going to 8 Super Bowls and only winning 3. Broncos lost 63% Super Bowls played
Chiefs 6 Super Bowls winning 4 of them. Chiefs won 67% Super Bowls played
There's definitely some teams that would be glad to have that wining percentage. Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo and Minnesota come to mind just off the top of my head. [Reply]
"The next time I'm wrong in this tread will be the first time!"
"You haven't proven me wrong about anything" ... "Disproven beyond the shadow of a doubt!"
Classic ...
________________
Somebody mentioned the 72 Dolphins somewhere ...
TRIVIA: Other than their 17-0 record, that team achieved and set a VERY impressive statistical record that can only be tied, never broken. What is it?? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brioni:
Bo REALLY has you mule toolers all excited coming out of the wood work with that little 5-3 record :-)
I dunno ... You'll be proud to know that hanging around here a little bit has caused me some doubts. Somebody here posted how our last four wins in a row are against teams that are. I think it was 1-4 in their last five games. Every one of them.
That is NOT encouraging. But overall Nix is a stud. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chicago_Bronco:
There's definitely some teams that would be glad to have that wining percentage. Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo and Minnesota come to mind just off the top of my head.
Thank you, sir
And I'm NOT shy about touting our 8-2 record in Championship Games. These Chiefs wieners in here are all whipped up because I don't count their AFL glory ... Well there were only eight teams (later 9 and 10 teams) in the AFL.
There's 13, 15, 16 in the AFC. Our road was much tougher than their first two SB appearances. [Reply]
And I'm NOT shy about touting our 8-2 record in Championship Games. These Chiefs wieners in here are all whipped up because I don't count their AFL glory ... Well there were only eight teams (later 9 and 10 teams) in the AFL.
There's 13, 15, 16 in the AFC. Our road was much tougher than their first two SB appearances.
:-)
You CHEATED. That's the easiest way possible!
DonkTard logic...:-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
You guys are truly obsessed!
RaidersCellar, context? What context?! There was no "context" in Beautiful Mind's shack, and there's no context in here. You guys are obsessed with the Denver Broncos, every one of you.
Again, the "Chiefs Suck" thread at Huddle (which started on the Mane in like 2012) has by far the most replies of any thread on the board. It also has about 150x more views than the typical thread there. You're obsessed w/ KC.
At best, you can say that both fanbases are obsessed. Difference is, only one is fueled by jealousy.
Personally, I view Denver as the sitcom that always delivers, week after week.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Next is RunKC and Pasta Little Bitty and those whining that I'm comparing specific years - well that's too bad. Sorry to break it to you, but that's how sports streaks and eras are discussed, you all know this. I've been VERY complimentary about the Chief's current Dynasty, but the whole point of my comparison was the five decades before Mahomes showed up.
All righty then...let's compare accomplishments from this millennium. That's a quarter of a century. Pretty good sample size, wouldn't you say? Who comes out on top?
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff: RaidersCellar, whadd'you mean "surpassed Denver in just about every category....In just a few years?" - And I NEVER said SBs I and IV "didn't count." Why you guys make stuff up just to win little arguments?
Uh, yeah, you said that you personally don't count "minor league" stats, aka AFL accomplishments pre-1970. If you count them, why would you not include them in your comparisons?
Btw, isn't it impressive that a "minor league" team blew out a major league team in January 1970? :-)
The NFL recognizes all AFL games and stats. You're literally the only person I've ever seen make this argument. And you want to talk about obsession? :-) [Reply]
. TRIVIA: Other than their 17-0 record, the 1972 Dolphins achieved and set a VERY impressive statistical record that can only be tied, never broken. What is it??
_____________
A: In addition to their 17-0 record ....
The 1972 Dolphins OFFENSE finished:
#1 in the League in yards gained
#1 in the League in points scored
The 1972 Dolphins DEFENSE finished:
#1 In the League in yards allowed
#1 in the League in points allowed
Freakin' amazing. Since I ran across this, maybe 20 years ago, I haven't mentioned the 85 Bears once.
Originally Posted by TEX: :-)
You CHEATED. That's the easiest way possible!
DonkTard logic...:-)
And not just that. Those 1997,1998, and 2015 Donks were beneficiaries of some of the most horrifically biased officiating in the Donks favor that anyone has ever seen.
One example (and there are plenty of others) is that 2015 Sunday Night game that they literally stole from NE (the bogus Gronk OPI). [Reply]
And I'm NOT shy about touting our 8-2 record in Championship Games. These Chiefs wieners in here are all whipped up because I don't count their AFL glory ... Well there were only eight teams (later 9 and 10 teams) in the AFL.
There's 13, 15, 16 in the AFC. Our road was much tougher than their first two SB appearances.
More teams makes the road automatically tougher? As if they have to play them all?
Btw, you don't want to compare roads. Imagine if the best team standing in Mahomes' way was a team QB'd by Bernie Kosar. He'd never miss the Super Bowl. And don't feed me some BS about the Browns being loaded. If Denver were beating loaded teams, they wouldn't have lost in the SB by 5,000 points. [Reply]
Originally Posted by brdempsey69:
As for "deferring payments" that is provably false. Where were they deferring payments to? Couldn't possibly be to fund a new stadium as that was literally impossible given the timeline of Denver voters passing referendum 4A on Nov. 3, 1998 which was in favor of the construction of a new football stadium to replace the existing Mile High Stadium & the grounds being broken on Aug. 17, 1999.
How could they possibly be "deferring payments to fund a new stadium" in 1996, 1997, or 1998 when there was literally no such place for them to defer payments to?
It was just a bold-faced lie by Pat Bowlen when he got publicly exposed for violating & cheating the salary cap circa 2000-2002.
Strong chance that the NFL PR machine helped concoct this flawed excuse.
The timeline doesnt hold up to scrutiny and would have been exposed had the internet been what it is today.
What were the NFL's options? They couldn't go back a replay two SBs...What about teams like the Steelers...that got beat in th AFCCG? How much lost revenue did that cost the city? What if fans start to lose interest?
It was a potential PR nightmare that had far reaching implications....so they attempted to squash it.
Anyone with common sense knows what the rub is...those SBs should have an asterisk. [Reply]
